Friday, July 31, 2009

2. Of course I don't like to be criticised. Anyone who says he likes criticism must be a hypocrite.

3. I admit that ever since I became Minister of Education in 1974, through my period as Deputy Prime Minister and then 22 years as Prime Minister I committed a lot of mistakes. I would not be human if I did not.

4. I am sure my critics also made mistakes in their lifetime. The only difference is that their mistakes affected only themselves. But if they get the chance to be PM maybe they will make the same mistakes I made. And we all will suffer.

5. Now we are seeing the former opposition parties forming Governments in several States. They were before very critical of Government mistakes. Now they seem to be making mistakes too.

6. Malaysians will have a tough time in the next general election. They may not like Barisan Nasional which for 50 years have been throwing tens of thousands into detention under the Internal Security Act, wasting public money building towers, airports, ports, highways etc, muzzling the Press etc etc. But they will find the so-called alternative coalition not much better.

7. Really Malaysia is a most unfortunate country. It has experienced misrule ever since independence. And it looks like it will continue to be misruled whether the incumbent or the opposition wins.

8. Maybe independence was a mistake also. How much better we would be under British rule. No one would be detained under the ISA. Everyone, Communists included, would be able ot speak their minds and contest in elections. Someone should be blamed for making the mistake of fighting for independence.

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on July 27, 2009 11:20 AM

1. Politicians make mistakes and commit sins and immoral acts. These will be made political issues by the enemies. They will blow up this little sins and immoralities until you become very unpopular.

2. You wish they would die or go away. You wish you can shut their mouths.

3. But this is a free country and you just cannot shut them up.

4. So what can you do?

5. The answer: Sue them. Sue them for 100 million.

6. The case will now go to the court.

7. When a case is before a court, it becomes sub judice. And when it is sub judice, your critic and enemy and others also cannot talk about the issue anymore. Effectively you have muzzled them and you are safe.

8. The court will take a long time to hear the case. You can prolong the time by asking for postponement, again and again. Any excuse will do.

9. And so the case drags on for years without the case being heard. It remains sub-judice and the critics will continue to be muzzled. You are safe.

10. Finally the case would be heard. If you win you stand to gain 100 million and the critic cannot bring up the matter anymore because you are now innocent.

11. But if you lose, then appeal to a higher court. The case remains sub-judice and the issue can't be brought up.

12. A few more years would pass and you are safe from being subjected to attacks on the issue.

13. At the Appeal Court you do the same thing. If found that the person you sued is not in the wrong, then appeal to the Appeal Court.

14. You can do the same at the Federal Court.

15. By then the people would have forgotten your sin and it would become a non-issue.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

1. I am gratified that so many Singaporeans know minute details regarding the price of water (raw and treated) and the negotiations that took place.

2. True, I did not negotiate successfully the increase of the 3 sen per 1000 gallons of raw water. You know why? If we demand an increase to 6 sen (100%), Singapore would increase the treated water price to RM1.00 (100%). Of course if we increase to RM6.00 Singapore would demand an increase to 50 x 2000% = RM100.00.

3. Yes, Malaysia profited by buying treated water at 50 sen. Malaysia's entitlement was only 12% of the raw water it sold to Singapore. The cost of treatment is not RM2.40 as alleged. It was only RM1.20. However, since the Singapore dollar has appreciated against the Malaysian Ringgit from being at par to RM2.40, the same cost to Singapore would now be about 2.4 times the original RM1.20.

4. By the same token, when Singapore pays 3 sen to Malaysians, in Singapore dollars it is only 0.42 sen (less than 1 sen for 1000 gallons).

5. At the original cost agreed upon Malaysia benefited by 70 sen per 1000 gallons of treated water but only on 12% of the raw water sold.

6. Assuming that Malaysia sells 100 million gallons to Singapore, it would pay RM3,000. Malaysia's purchase of 12,000,000 gallons would be RM6,000. Despite the discount, Malaysia would have to pay Singapore RM6,000 while Singapore would pay Malaysia RM3,000. It looks like Singapore would pay Malaysia with the money it earns from selling water to Malaysia and still have money to spare.

7. The negotiations failed because Singapore wanted more water beyond 2060. We could not agree to commit the future generations of Malaysians to something that could be to their disadvantage.

8. The price of treated water to the citizens of Singapore is very high compared to the 0.42 of one sen paid by Singapore for 1000 gallons plus the cost of treatment.

9. It is clear that for every day the water agreement remains in place, the Singapore Government stands to gain a huge sum of money from selling water to the people of Singapore.

10. By 2011 the first agreement would lapse. But the second agreement would lapse only in 2060. Singapore can enjoy 0.42 of one cent per 1000 gallons for another 51 years.

11. Since the present Malaysian Government has generously decided to stop discussions with Singapore on all outstanding issues, Singapore would continue to benefit from all the outstanding issues with Malaysia. Yet Malaysia willingly gave up its naval base at Woodlands without asking for any compensation for the facilities owned by Malaysia there.

12. Lee Kuan Yew is right. By Malaysian Government's consent Malaysia is Singapore's hinterland and subject to Singapore Government's largesse. Singaporeans need not worry. You will continue to pay 0.42% of 1 sen for 1000 gallons of raw water until 2060. It is Malaysia's gift to Singapore.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

I reproduce here the payments made by Petronas to the Federal Government since 1976. That year the Government received RM300 million. The amount increased to RM2 billion in 1981. By 2003 it paid RM15.6 billion to the Federal Government. The total from 1981 to 2003 is RM168.8 billion in 22 years.

From then onwards it increased from RM19 billion in 2004 to RM67.8 billion in 2009. The total for six years is RM253.6 billion.

I am sure the Government had spent the money wisely. It would be interesting to know what the RM253.6 billion was spent on.

** FY- Payment (in billion)

1976 - 0.3

1977 - 0.7

1978 - 0.7

1979 - 0.7

1980 - 1.8

1981 - 2.0

1982 - 2.6

1983 - 3.8

1984 - 4.3

1985 - 4.6

1986 - 5.0

1987 - 4.0

1988 - 4.4

1989 - 4.3

1990 - 5.5

1991 - 7.4

1992 - 7.1

1993 - 7.7

1994 - 7.3

1995 - 6.7

1996 - 6.8

1997 - 8.8

1998 - 9.6

1999 - 8.2

2000 - 12.0

2001 - 17.1

2002 - 14.0

2003 - 15.6

2004 - 19.0

2005 - 28.1

2006 - 37.8

2007 - 44.1

2008 - 56.8

2009 - 67.8

** Petronas Group payment to Federal Government inclusive of taxes, royalty, export duty and dividends

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

As posted by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad at Che Det on on June 30, 2009 8:04 AM

1) A lawyer sent me a long article on the above subject. He seems to be upset about some decisions made by the courts.

2) I cannot reproduce his long article but some extracts relevant to Malaysia merit attention by the Malaysian public who may be worried that the people's right to be governed by leaders of their own choice has been eroded.

3) Can the King dismiss the Prime Minister? The answer is;

4) No, if the political framework is that of Constitutional Monarchy and there are no express provisions in the Constitution. Additionally, Constitutional Conventions provides no precedent for the exercise of such a power.

5) The Malaysian Constitution;

Article 40 expressly provides that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall act on advice, and by Article 40(2), may act in his discretion in the performance of the following functions, that is to say;

a) the appointment of a Prime Minister;

b) the withholding of consent to a request for the dissolution of Parliament;

c) the requisition of a meeting of the Conference of Rulers concerned solely with the privileges, position, honours and dignities of Their Royal Highnesses, and any action at such meeting;

and in any other cases mentioned in this Constituion.

6) But the relevant article that will close the debate on whether the Agong can dismiss the Prime Minister is contained in Article 43(5) of the Constitution.

7) It provides as follows;

Subject to clause (4), Ministers other than the Prime Minister shall hold office during the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, unless the appointment of any Minister shall be revoked by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the Prime Minister but any Minister may resign his office.

8) But, since the Prime Minister does not hold office at the pleasure of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, it must follow that he cannot be dismissed by the King, but he has to resign from office if he fails to command the majority of the members in the House of Representatives.